This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Press Release: 11/24/2024 IP.com is thrilled to announce the launch of InnovationQ, the next-generation interface for its industry-leading Prior Art Database. Why InnovationQ Matters to Innovators InnovationQ’s state-of-the-art capabilities make it the go-to solution for organizations striving to maintain a competitive edge.
Cases relating to the exclusion of patentable subject matter on moral grounds are rare, and always serve to highlight the underlying moral and political framework necessary for a well-functioning IP system. Case Background The patent ( EP2443126 ) related to the plant extract Simalikalactone E and its use to treat malaria.
The following is an edited transcript of my video Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Definitions and Differences. The following is an edited transcript of my video Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Definitions and Differences. A patent registration generally lasts for 20 years from the time the application was filed.
by Dennis Crouch In a significant decision, the Federal Circuit has established a more rigorous test for determining when a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application can be considered prior art as of its provisional filing date. Continue reading this post on Patently-O. In re Riggs , Case No.
Malladi Drugs, SpicyIP Intern Bhuwan Sarine analyses the Court’s finding on the burden of proof in patent matters concerning revocation petitions. 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”). Accordingly, the Court decided in favour of Malladi Drugs (“Respondent”), upholding the validity of its patent. Petitioner”) under s.
The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the PTAB erred by (1) requiring identity between the motivations for the prior art and the 718 patent, (2) failing to support its findings with substantial evidence, (3) conflating. Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensings U.S. Honeywell appealed.
Dr. Abolkheir labels the inherent fallacy within patent law as “ inventio ad hominem ” fallacy. Questioning the logical foundations of patent laws, he argues that defining ‘inventive step’ in terms of ‘non-obviousness’ shifts the focus of inquiry to the inventor, rather than the invention itself. Cipla Ltd. ,
In a second of a series on AI and patents from our KatFriends at GJE, Kate Voller reports on a recent CIPA webinar with the EPO on how the EPO is leveraging AI tools in examination - with the key message of "assisting", not "replacing" examiners. The AmeriKat has the t-shirt.now what?
In a new opinion the court asked and answerd an interesting question: What if most on-point prior art was accidentally created due to a typographical error? A key to the analysis was a finding that the error would have been apparent to someone of skill in the art. You can compare the prior art linear objective lens results (Fig.
14, 2025), addressing whether a published patent application can serve as prior art in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings as of its filing date. 8,410,400 (the 400 patent), which covers LED-based. Samsung Electronics Co., 23-2346 (Fed. By: Hudnell Law Group
The Federal Circuit says that you must disclose and describe the prior art, or your Jepson claim is invalid. It is also truly a mystery why the Patent Office would ever defend this PTAB decision and advocate in favor of requiring the prior art to be disclosed, discussed and supported.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) that a published patent application (Lettich) qualified as prior art to a pending application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/005,678 (the 168 Application), because the Boards analysis as to Lettichs prior art status was incomplete. In re Riggs, No. 22-1945, __ F.4th
The Board of Appeal decision in T 0816/22 considered whether post-published phase III clinical trial data showing lack of efficacy can invalidate a second medical use patent that appeared plausible based on the data in the application as filed.
15, 2023) , the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “comparison prior art” must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the challenged claims of U.S. In its decision, the CAFC considered the question of when a published patent application is deemed prior art in an inter partes review (IPR). 10,687,400 unpatentable. Lynk Labs, Inc. Samsung Elecs. January 14, 2025).
Patent 7,736,355 (“the ’355 patent”) does not qualify as prior art to related U.S. Patents 8,048,032, RE45,380, RE45,776, RE45,760, and RE47,379 (collectively, “the challenged patents”) under pre-AIA’s first-to-invent provisions. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L. ,
The case is now on petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court and raises significant questions about the burden of proving enablement of prior art references in patent cases. Read the petition in 24-866] Converter Manufacturing holds a number of patents covering thermoformed plastic food trays with rolled edges.
by Dennis crouch In October 2024, the USPTO terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a U.S. The bulk of the applications are Chinese origin filed through Dr. Yu "Mark" Wang, who operated a patent services firm called Wayne and King LLC (W&K). practitioners signature.
The hypothetical person with ordinary skill in the art will have a certain amount of requisite experience in the subject matter of the patent at the time of the invention of the patent. By: BakerHostetler
In recent years, AI patent activity has exponentially increased. The figure below shows the volume of public AI patent applications categorized by AI component in the U.S. AI patent activities by year. Inventors and patent attorneys often face the challenge of effectively protecting new AI technology development.
The Conundrum In an interesting order, the Madras High Court, in the case of Dr. Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents , dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application!
by Dennis Crouch This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system’s integrity. Still, seemingly qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
Recently, the Indian Patent Office rejected a patent application by UPL Ltd. for lack of sufficient disclosure mandated under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act. In the context of this order, SpicyIP intern Deepali Vashist discusses the disclosure requirement under the Patents Act and what it means for the larger patent bargain.
How long does it take to get a design patent? On average, a design patent application can take about 16 months for the initial examination. In fact, we have seen design patent applications take two to three years for the initial review by the examiner. Need to speed up your design patent application?
Merck Patent GmbH, No. CQV petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for post-grant review of a Merck patent relating to alpha-alumina flakes with particular characteristics. CQV asserted that various combinations of prior art rendered the challenged claims obvious. 2023-1027 (Fed.
Merck Patent GmbH , No. 10, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB post-grant review (PGR) decision that had upheld the validity of Merck's patent against sales of a commercially available product. It also sets up another increasingly common scenario where neither the patentee nor the patent challenger are US entities.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition because a prior artpatent figure did not provide exact dimensions, and therefore could not meet the relevant claim limitation.
8, 2024) , the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s legal conclusion that Weber’s operating manuals were not prior art printed publications based on the public accessibility of the operating manuals. The two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. Weber , slip op., By applying the framework in Cordis Corp.
Can foreign applicants file US utility patent applications? Inventors located outside the US can file US patent applications. Foreign inventors, however, must be careful to follow the patent laws of the country in which the invention was made. Are you a foreign business looking to apply for a US patent?
February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is narrower than the ranges disclosed in the patent specification, and (2) the kind of prior art disclosure language which supports a finding of a motivation to combine for an obviousness rejection.
After a nine-year saga, beginning when Amgen sued Sanofi for allegedly infringing two of its patents in 2014, the Supreme Court held that Amgen’s asserted patents failed to satisfy the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and are thus invalid. In re Wands , 858 F.2d 2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed.
Artificial intelligence is changing industry and society, and metrics at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reflect its impact. In a recent publication, the USPTO indicated that from 2002 to 2018 the share of all patent applications relating to artificial intelligence grew from 9% to approximately 16%. See Alice Corp.
This case addresses the ability of a petitioner in an IPR to present new evidence in a reply brief, particularly where the patent owner proposes a new claim construction in its patent owner response. Medtronic”) owns multiple patents relating to transcutaneous (i.e. Background Medtronic, Inc. Axonics, Inc.
Recently, an interesting order was issued in Patent Application No. 202417006578 ( pdf ), by Vikas Verma, Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office (Chennai), in the context of a pre-grant opposition (PGO) against an application by Pharmazz Inc. Image from here. back in 2010.
Patent Prosecution Highway or PPH is a set of initiatives promulgated by participating patent offices around the world to accelerate patent prosecution in countries of the participating patent offices. Filing patent applications under PPH can drastically reduce time it takes to prosecute the patent applications.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a brief opinion authored by Judge Chen today that rejected Daedalus Blue LLC’s appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding certain claims of its patent on a data management system unpatentable. The PTAB held that U.S.
The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 1865/22 considered the inventive step of a composition where the only distinguishing feature was a lower concentration of a component compared to the closest prior art. The prior art taught that higher concentrations of this component were advantageous. The patent was opposed by Chemetall GmbH.
Artificial intelligence is changing industry and society, and metrics at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reflect its impact. In a recent publication, the USPTO indicated that from 2002 to 2018 the share of all patent applications relating to artificial intelligence grew from 9% to approximately 16%. See Alice Corp.
Patent and Trademark Office that they're torn on how artificial intelligence should be used when determining whether something is patentable over prior art. Technology companies, drugmakers and various industry organizations have represented to the U.S.
Patent protection may limit access to new ideas and technology and, therefore, raise concerns about disparities in access and stifle the growth of the metaverse as a shared online space. Ethical dimensions of patenting critical Metaverse innovations should be watchful and counter any anti-competitive practice that might arise.
GM decision, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its examiners providing updated guidance and examination instructions in light of the court’s overturning of the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for determining obviousness of design patents. ” And, like the primary reference, any secondary references must also be analogous art.
In this decision, the Board of Appeal upheld Inhibrx's European patent EP2812443 directed to a genus of anti-CD47 antibodies defined by their epitope binding and functional characteristics, finding both sufficient disclosure and inventive step. CD47 is a cancer antigen expressed on cell surfaces with a monomeric immunoglobulin-like structure.
Evo’s design patent claims an “ ornamental design for a foldable bag ” as shown in the figures above. district court held the patent invalid as both functional and obvious; and also not infringed. Functionality : Design patents focus on ornamentality rather than utility. by Dennis Crouch. 3d 1301 (Fed.
What are the right patents for Amazon sellers? Traditional patents that might work in the courts may not be the best type of IP protection for online sales on the e-commerce platform. Since Amazon uses their own legal system for adjudicating patent disputes , sellers need to know how to play the IP game Amazon’s way.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content